January 29, 2009

Today YJ and I were discussing for the 1000th time the Τιbetan question and I suggested that my disdain and distaste for the Party line (and its supporters and parrots at home and abroad) had little to do with their opinion or right to hold such an opinion, but rather that the claims this group tended to make were of a different intellectual tradition than my own. The “Τιbet always has been, always will be part of China” crowd are starting from a point of certainty and proceeding to mine the past to create a narrative in support of that predetermined certainty. Complexity and nuance need not apply.

I’m not disputing the assertion “Τιbet is a part of China” or even “Τιbet was historically a part of China,” just that such assertions are built on unstable ground. The problem of Τιbet involves highly complex questions of sovereignty, authority, national identity, (de)colonization, and the evolution of empires into nation-states. Even the very definitions of these ideas, never mind how such ideas were understood in the past, are subject to discussion and debate. Thus the above assertion on Τιbet isn’t “wrong,” but the glassy-eyed certainty with which it is uttered and the narratives which support it deserve to be unpacked and the constituent parts looked at carefully and critically. For me, the counter to “Τιbet is part of China and history says so” is not “Τιbet is not part of China and history says so” but rather “How can you be so sure? Did you look at it this way?”

It then examines how historians’ minds work when it comes to reaching conclusions that then go on to become mainstream. shibboleths. This is not really a post on Tibet, but on drawing historical parallels in general. Its conclusion certainly got me thinking:

Indeed, the rhetoric of same sex marriage and gays serving the military disturbingly resembles the rhetoric against miscegenation and mixed-race army units in the 20th century. Similarly, the suggestions that PRC control of the Tibetan plateau was a strategic necessity, a humanitarian mission of liberation, or a benevolent paternalism which brought “modernity” in the form of hospitals, schools, and infrastructure to the benighted locals is fiendishly close to the justifications used by European and American imperialists in centuries past (and recent years).

The Discussion: 43 Comments

The primary problem with this discussion is that all of the participants in the argument are arguing from the modern western nation-state point of view, all at a time when the concept of the nation-state did not exist yet in China or Tibet.

It is worth mentioning that up until 1911, when the Republic of China was overthrown by a political party which later became the Nationalists, the concept of nation-state did not really exist in China. The Qing dynasty did not call itself China or 中國, it referred to itself as 大凊國， or great Qing nation. In Tibet, the concept of a Tibetan nation did not exist either, even though all sides were keenly aware of differences in culture and language. There was no border customs and there were no passports. This all came later with the treaty ports and Sir Robert Hart, who set up Chinese customs so that the insolvent Qing dynasty could make some income which it could then use to make war reparations to the foreign powers after losing many wars.

The relationship with between China and Tibet was called “suzerainty”, a term which has become distant and relatively unknown to many modern people. My dictionary tells me that the definition of suzerainty is “a sovereign or state having control over another state which is internally autonomous”. In practical terms, what that meant was that the Qing court demanded an outward show from the Tibetan dalais of respect to China, while the Qing court, in their generosity, allowed the Tibetans to do internally whatever they liked.

The Chinese did not require the Tibetans to sing the Chinese national anthem since there was no Chinese national anthem, nor did they require that Tibetans carry Chinese passports, since there were no Chinese passports. If Chinese and Tibetans from 200 years ago were to come to the present, it is likely that they would have no idea or understanding of what all the arguments are all about.

So much for the Tibetan and Chinese nationalism arguments. In fact, there is no place for imposing present realities on the past. That is only for those who have a political point to make.

Thanks for the great comment, Paul. I think what you are saying is central to Jeremiah’s point, that we have to be extremely cautious when imposing these historical parallels many years after the fact. They may fit our belief systems nicely and make us feel good, but they simply aren’t grounded in any reality. The parallels simply don’t hold up upon closer scrutiny.

Stuart: Once the Chinese government allow open discourse on such issues I’ll be happy to unblock it.

You may have a very, very long wait. Meanwhile, if I adopted that attitude I wouldn’t have much of a life. I mean, I hated the US government under Bush, but I couldn’t disown and reject and refuse to cooperate with it – I still needed to pay taxes and fill out customs forms and comply with US laws. And I had to accept the fact that as much as I detested Bush, not every aspect of the US government was reflective of Bush’s policies. So I payed my taxes and cooperated with my government, etc. Nearly everything here in China reflects the party. If I imposed this attitude on my daily life I couldn’t ride taxis or subways or watch TV or work with the Chinese media (which is part of my job). If the Chinese government wants to pay me money for writing posts that criticize them, that’s fine with me. No one intelligent enough to read this blog is going to believe the drivel on their propaganda sites anyway. (And for the record, I make next to nothing from these ads anyway.)

Maybe if a US government ad for enlisting to fight in Iraq showed up I would block it. Same with an ad from China inviting people to move to Tibet as settlers. But an ad for an obviously sham site for tourism to merry, peaceful, happy Tibet – I’m delighted to let readers to see what asses the party makes of themselves.

Also I cannot agree with Paul Denlinger on border customers and passports in Qing period. Maybe there were no modern sense of passport and border control. But there were still institutions to collect custom tax and issue identity certifications. Well, I am not sure those existing between Tibet areas and the rest of the nation, but cerntainly they were there on the coast. And the obssession with the name of the nation seems to be unnecessory.

@Paul
“. In fact, there is no place for imposing present realities on the past. That is only for those who have a political point to make.”

Yep. Interpreting the past from the present may lead to wrong interpretations and false assumptions.
If additionally there is a political motive…

On the other had, even interpreting the present but from different regions leads to interesting differences.

From the EU side CH looks like one of those big empires of old, populated by different peoples/cultures. This empires eventually disintegrated into national states according to the different nationalities fault lines. A National state is considered more advanced, efficient and stable form of government than a multi ethnic empire hold together by a central power
(maybe the old ideal of the greek Polis is very much alive here)
The Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Austrohungarian Empire, German Empire, Russian Empire,… all of them eventually disintegrated.
The question some ask themselves here is why its does not happen is China.
Some even consider CH not as a nation, but rather a civilization that want to be a nation.

From CH side the EU seems to be in a state sort of similar to the Warring States Period. The area is divided in, often, warring countries and there is not an centralization of government, languages or rules.
Those multiple national states with all their differences are considered a very inefficient form of government, and CH people wonders why the EU cannot accomplish a more centralized, and for them, more sensible form of government.
It must be confusing for the CH to deal with EU. Like entering into a henhouse/madhouse where everybody is running running around without any discernible order, and where it seems to be no central authority.

I agree that the PRC is constructing a particular narrative regarding the history of Tibet. But this is understandable. The PRC is not doing historical research. It is building a nation. In the process of nation building, you promote some views and suppress other views. Whether or not the ancient China was an empire, the PRC is a modern nation state with Tibet as an integral part. As a a modern nation, PRC rightfully demands loyalty from all peoples residing within its border. You can be a Tibetan, but you must be a Chinese first. It is surprising how hard it is for Westerners to understand this.

In the end this Tibet question is best addressed within the perimeter of indigenous rights, something I talked about in an earlier thread.

The analogy of China and Israel is misleading. Israel does not treat Palestinians as Israeli citizens.

@serve the people
“Whether or not the ancient China was an empire, the PRC is a modern nation state with Tibet as an integral part. As a a modern nation, PRC rightfully demands loyalty from all peoples residing within its border.”

That is contradictory. Nation State, Demands loyalty, peoples residing in its borders…

An empire is not a nation state, it is actually composed of several former nations , civilizations and peoples. All empires which disintegrated in past history were divided according to fault lines of nations/peoples. One of the last ones was the Soviet empire. Do you see Russian claiming the Baltic states, Ukraine, Kazajastan belong to the Russian federation?

When a empire becomes a nation state, some peoples alliances to the former empire may be no longer valid.

The new nation state has not the right to unilaterally change the treaties by which other peoples decided (or where forced to) join the former empire. It can of course impose it by force.. But “de jure” the reasons to forced to belong to the new nation are not sound.

In some cases, the new nation state exterminated former peoples/nationalities. See the case of the Armenians in Turkey, they where perceived as a danger by the new nation state of Turkey.

Actually the autonomy of TB in former CH empire was far greater than in PRC, and the meddling of CH in internal TB affairs was far less. Tibetans lost a lot with the change from Qing—>PRC. No wonder the are not satisfied with current state of things.

That TB belonged to Qing empire or any previous dynasty is not reason enough. Are you going also to claim Mongolia of the parts of former Qing empire which now belong to Russian? Good luck with it. The Russians have the means to counter…. any argument you may have with hard means.

The bad luck of TB is that they are an Isolated country, (but not isolated enough from CH) not very much technologically advanced, militarily weak, inhabited by relatively peaceful people and too close to a power which was, and sitll is, in much need of self esteem….
That combination and its consequences should sound familiar to CH too….

I fail to understand what you want to say. Are you challenging the PRC sovereignty over Tiber? Remember that national sovereignty is determined by international law, through treaties and UN security council resolutions (BTW General Assembly resolutions don’t count).

Almost every major country has a separatist movement, but that does not change its territory integrity. If you want to dispute the PRC sovereignty over Tibet, you may want to start with your own government first (I assume you are not PRC citizen), and see how it goes.

You appear to be making some moralistic judgment based on historical relationship between Tibet and the Qing court. We are here trying not to make such argument.

Paul is completely wrong in trying to differentiate between how China sees Tibet and how western nations/empires have seen their conquests. Germany and Poland have had a similar relationship, but are still culturally and linguistically separate.

Tibet has a completely separate language, culture and self-identity. And Tibet used to rule what is now China all the way to Xian. China simply whittled away at Tibet over millenia as well as take advantage of Tibet paying Chinese armies to fight the muslims on its northern and northwestern borders. Tibet was also the source of spiritual advisors to many Chinese emporers, spurring more reason for them to protect Tibet with military force from the Muslims. The commie dogs simply interpret that ancient relationship as Tibet being an integral part of China.

China also uses similar logic to claim Vietnam and 30% of the Korean peninsula, and those two areas have alot more in common with China than Tibet does.

And in the end, gaining Tibet is a strategic decision orginally to gain the high ground on India, second as a source of minerals (西藏 means “western treasure) and now as a source of water, because China is dying of lack of water and lots of swampy sewage.

And now China claims Anaruchal Pradesh as “southern Tibet” to gain more fresh water and arable land.

China destroys its own country and creates false history to conquer others under the justification of “others did it in the past, we can do it to”.

“…. that up until 1911, when >>the Republic of China<>the Qing dynasty<< that was overthrown by the Nationalists, who founded the Republic of China and were later defeated by the communists, who founded PRC in 1949.

So much for the Tibetan and Chinese nationalism arguments. In fact, there is no place for imposing present realities on the past. That is only for those who have a political point to make.

Of course nationalisms are reconstructions of the past, as well as creations of and reactions to colonial and imperial discourses and power. But modern Tibetan nationalism is not de-legitimated somehow because there was no Tibetan nation or no Chinese nation in the closing stages of the Qing Dynasty, nor does informing us of these alleged facts having any effect on the current phase of Chinese expansionist nationalism. Jeremiah and Paul are guilty of doing exactly the same thing they claim those of us “making political points” are doing — using the reconstructed past to delegitimate discourses in the present — and make political points about others’ political stances.

This ridiculous habit of validating one’s own intellectual acumen by declaring that the “middle” is where the smart people are (is there some “middle” position on the value of imperialism?) will be about as effective in stopping China’s land grabs as the western arms embargo on Spain was during the 1930s in stopping the march of Fascism.

To continue, what Denlinger et al are doing is making an emotional appeal to the listener, just as the Tibetans and the Chinese are. In the case of Denlinger et al, the argument runs:

PREMISE 1: The Qing dynasty did not call itself China or 中國, it referred to itself as 大凊國， or great Qing nation. In Tibet, the concept of a Tibetan nation did not exist either, even though all sides were keenly aware of differences in culture and language. There was no border customs and there were no passports.

PREMISE 2: If Chinese and Tibetans from 200 years ago were to come to the present, it is likely that they would have no idea or understanding of what all the arguments are all about.

CONCLUSION: So much for the Tibetan and Chinese nationalism arguments.

The problem is the implied premise, which is that if “at particular point A in the past there was no idea of nation, modern nationalism is de-legitimated.” That is actually the heart of this “argument” and it has no logical basis in reason, emotion, values, or fact — merely in the assumed and implicitly shared intellectual superiority of the “we” who are its listeners and who are invited to accept its “logical” force through the shared emotion of intellectual superiority. It actually displays exactly the same inability to critique its premises that Denlinger et al accuse Chinese and Tibetan nationalists of showing.

There were indeed concepts of nationalism that were more tied to ethnicity. The PRC is trying to paint itself as a different version of the US, just as diverse, except most of the minorities were culled and contained thousands of years ago and the occupied territories of Tibet and E. Turkestan are still being harmonized.

The assertion that the concept of nation state was weak or nonexistent for China and Tibet before 1911 doesn’t sound right to me. You only have to read the accounts of 19th century visitors to Tibet to see how vigourously the Tibetans defended their borders and how they saw themselves as a very much a distinct nation and race from Han China and others such as the Turkestan Muslims. Just because a nation lacks a customs service or national anthem does not mean it has no sense of national identity.

The Qing dynasty did not call itself China or 中國, it referred to itself as 大凊國， or great Qing nation. In Tibet, the concept of a Tibetan nation did not exist either, even though all sides were keenly aware of differences in culture and language. There was no border customs and there were no passports.

If the PRC cannot provide for rule of law or guarantee the basic human rights for Han peoples then they have no legitimate claim to be protectors or being able to provide for legitimate governship of Tibet.

“Tibet belongs to china” implies a master/slave feudal relationship or a property ownership of tibet. The PRC claims to have liberated the Tibetans from a feudal slave society yet they fall back on a feudal relationship between the qing empire and tibet to justify the claim “Tibet belongs to China” while failing to provide for the welfare or guarantee basic human rights for the tibetan peoples themselves.

as long as the PRC continues to claim “ownership” of tibet while showing a lack of respect for the basic rights of tibetans then there will be opposition to china. if the PRC was providing legitimate goverment for tibetan peoples then the tibetan peoples would have no just issue for opposition.

the tibetan people are being enslaved as vassals to the new communist dynasty in Hu Jin Tao’s while the Han peoples expoit Tibetan land and resources for their own selfish benefit.

Stockholm syndrome is a condition very close to Chinese people’s warped mentality. They themselves are enslaved by the CCP and they do suffer. However, they apparently still love their slave master and even help the CCP to enslave the Tibetan people. So both are slaves. It is not that the Chinese people are evil or stupid, but because their mentality is totally screwed up by their master’s coercion and their own dire situation. They give up fighting for their freedom and assist the evil-doer instead. It is just paradoxical.

“The analogy of China and Israel is misleading. Israel does not treat Palestinians as Israeli citizens.”

Indeed, Palestinians often secretly wish that they were Tibetans, and thus happy smiling Chinese citizens. There are so many awesome rights that come along with being a Chinese citizen, it’s like winning the f-ing lottery. Especially if you are Tibetan!

Indeed, the rhetoric of same sex marriage and gays serving the military disturbingly resembles the rhetoric against miscegenation and mixed-race army units in the 20th century. Similarly, the suggestions that PRC control of the Tibetan plateau was a strategic necessity, a humanitarian mission of liberation, or a benevolent paternalism which brought “modernity” in the form of hospitals, schools, and infrastructure to the benighted locals is fiendishly close to the justifications used by European and American imperialists in centuries past (and recent years).

First off, anti-miscegenation and anti-homosexuality are different. Homosexuality has no lasting impact on the genetic makeup of a people, therefore it’s ignorable. However, the anti-miscegenation laws in America were based off of pseudoscience and pretty much everything America did up until that point was utterly despicable.

As for Tibet, it was a strategic necessity. Of course, it wasn’t humanitarian. Nothing about the PRC, especially back then, was humanitarian. The fact that the most evil people on the planet of the time (Hitler and Europeans, Americans) did something at some period of time doesn’t mean that emulating some aspects of their behavior is necessarily bad (or good, of course). i.e the guy is pandering and pulling up irrelevancies to bolster his argument.

If not it’s a bit like placing an ad during ww2 portraying Belsen as a paradise created by the Nazis for the betterment and preservation of Jewish culture.

Except there’s absolutely nothing in common between the two, and you are sick for even mentioning it. I know 50 years is a long time, but try not to diminish the impact of the Holocaust if you can.

It says much of the intellectual integrity of the Israelites.

If you believe this ecodelta, you are truly delusional. Some CCP may say that the Tibetans are one people but they obviously mean that in a sense that they belong to the same nation. Aside from that, of fucking course the Israelis know the Palestinians are a different people. That’s why they are getting rid of them.

@nanheTibet has a completely separate language, culture and self-identity. And Tibet used to rule what is now China all the way to Xian. China simply whittled away at Tibet over millenia as well as take advantage of Tibet paying Chinese armies to fight the muslims on its northern and northwestern borders. Tibet was also the source of spiritual advisors to many Chinese emporers, spurring more reason for them to protect Tibet with military force from the Muslims

They also protected them from the Nepalese, just as an added note. If the Tibetans extended their borders to Xian, it’s through conquest and imperialism of their own. Aside from that, I’m not disputing what you said save a few miles give or take on the borders you’ve drawn.

@Michaelarms embargo on Spain was during the 1930s in stopping the march of Fascism.

Enough with your dishonest and classless comparisons of modern China to disgusting fascist Europe. Interestingly though, Franco was supported by America so if that fantasy plays out in reality things might not be so bad for you. Certainly a Mussolini or Franco of China would be nanhe’s friend against the “commie dogs”.

@Lindelthe tibetan people are being enslaved as vassals to the new communist dynasty in Hu Jin Tao’s while the Han peoples expoit Tibetan land and resources for their own selfish benefit.

Stow your Che t-shirt and save your cause of the day cant for your buddies. The “Han peoples” are exploiting Tibetan land? I guess the “Tibetic peoples” are exploiting the one-child policy in a conspiracy to commit genocide against the “Han peoples”. Ridiculous.

Stockholm syndrome is a condition very close to Chinese people’s warped mentality.

And you’re still a loony.

Indeed, Palestinians often secretly wish that they were Tibetans

A straw man from kevin. Surprising. They probably just wish the Israelis weren’t annihilating them. But the Israelis deserve a homeland, unlike the Native Americans. Just because. Where else would kevin’s buddies be able to take out a ridiculous loan to build a McMansion on? Their European homelands? har har har.

the most evil people on the planet of the time (Hitler and Europeans, Americans)

So you, being an American, think of yourself as one of the most evil people on the planet. You must have a hard time looking into the mirror every morning. Don’t be so hard on yourself, maybe then you can stop your abusive racist trolling and get a life.

Enough with your dishonest and classless comparisons of modern China to disgusting fascist Europe.

So now all of Europe has become fascist? When did that happen? Judging by his knowledge and view of the world, I’m getting more and more convinced that Ferin/yourfriend is a middle school student in some Midwestern little town that he has never left so far. What was that place Al Bundy’s wife is from called again? Wanker County? Yeah, I think that’s where Ferin’s hometown is.

The persecution of a people considered inferior by their oppressors including false arrests, detentions, beatings, torture, and mass murder coupled with the systematic demonisation and destruction of their cultural and religious beliefs.

Not the same thing at all. The difference between you and me is that I’ve actually been to China while the closest you ever got to China is the Beef Noodles Takeaway Restaurant in your little hometown in Wanker County.

Ah, Ferin has changed his name but is still here to share his pseudo-”wisdom” (“Acknowledge me, please!”), confirming my assumption that I had much better things to do than reading here. I’ll pursue more sophisticated dialogues at the People’s Daily Strong Nation Forum.

What the hell, kevin says I’m American in every single thread as a reply to every single one of my posts no matter what it’s about. I could comment about a thread and butthurt kevin would fly in and call me an American.

Right, Ferin alias yourfriend alias bum, it is your mistake. I’ve never said you are German (in Germany, maladjusted school kids are not allowed to use computers and get online), I said you are a Nazi. There are plenty of those in the USA, just google a little bit and make a count: how many of those Nazi websites are from your home country America and how many are from Germany.
Now, take your abusive, racist, misogynist rants and post them on some Stormtrooper’s blogsite where they belong.
P.S.: Greetings to your family in Wanker County, Wisconsin.

I’m sorry but I don’t understand how one can discuss the topic of “Whether or not Tibet should be free’d” to fascist’s and having a member of the Nazi Freikorp’s brigade being in your family tree line.

About

A peculiar hybrid of personal journal, dilettantish punditry, pseudo-philosophy and much more, from an Accidental Expat who has made his way from Hong Kong to Beijing to Taipei and finally back to Beijing for reasons that are still not entirely clear to him…